Henry v. Sterling Collision Centers Inc.

This
case involves allegations of race-based employment
discrimination. Plaintiff Tatiana Henry (“Henry”
or “plaintiff”) claims that defendant Sterling
Collision Centers, Inc. d/b/a Sterling Autobody Centers
(“Sterling” or “defendant”) 1)
discriminated against her, 2) harassed her and 3) fired her
in retaliation for reporting the discrimination all in
violation of the Massachusetts Anti-Discrimination Statute,
M.G.L. c. 151B (“Chapter 151B”). Sterling's
motion for summary judgment is currently pending before the
Court. For the reasons that follow, that motion will be, with
respect to defendant's request that damages for lost
wages be limited to the period before October 23, 2014,
allowed but otherwise denied.

I.
Background:

A.
The Parties

Henry,
a woman of African descent who was born in Haiti, currently
resides in Sudbury, Massachusetts. Until mid-2014, Sterling
operated auto body stores across the United States and was
headquartered in Natick, Massachusetts. At that time,
Sterling became a wholly owned subsidiary of Service King
Paint & Body, LLC (“Service King”). Both
Sterling and Service King are incorporated under the laws of
Delaware and have principal places of business in Richardson,
Texas.

Henry
first started working at Sterling as an accounts payable
coordinator in October, 2007. She had no issues with
discrimination or harassment during her first stint at
Sterling and she left in May, 2011 of her own accord because
she was moving out of the state.

In
April, 2013, Henry returned to Massachusetts and was re-hired
by defendant to work as an accounts payable coordinator. When
she returned to Sterling, Henry was the only black woman on a
team of six to seven employees. Her direct supervisor was
Deborah McGaughey, who reported to Guy Block. Gavin Fiske was
Henry's co-worker.

During
Henry's employment, Sterling had two policies that barred
discrimination, harassment and retaliation: 1) its Equal
Opportunity Policy and 2) its Freedom from Harassment /
Respect in the Workplace Policy. Although Sterling convened a
meeting about those policies each year, according to Henry,
Mr. Block, who led the meetings, always mocked the policies.

B.
The Group Text Message Incident

The
first incident that plaintiff reported to Sterling's
Human Resources Department (“HR”) involved a
group text message. In December, 2013, Mr. Fiske sent a text
message to coworkers, including Mr. Block and plaintiff, that
involved a picture of another co-worker dressed as a
character from the movie Star Wars. Plaintiff
responded by texting “[oh my god] is that really
her?” and “are you cyber stalking the
[coworker].” Another person in the group text asked Mr.
Fiske if he was “BFF”, which means “Best
Friends Forever”, with the coworker. Then a different
individual asked if “BFF” stands for “big
f****** friend”. At that point, plaintiff texted the
group that she was laughing and that “it's Sunday
be [holy]”. In February or March of 2014, plaintiff
reported the group text messages to Sterling's Assistant
Vice President of HR, Cary Varn.

C.
The Racially Offensive Comments

At that
time, plaintiff also reported to HR that Mr. Block had been
making racially offensive comments. The parties agree that
Mr. Block made the following comments in plaintiff's
presence: 1) when she was eating chicken, he asked if it was
fried chicken and if she was drinking Kool-Aid, 2) he stated
that he was taking Martin Luther King Day off to have fried
chicken and “celebrate with black people”, 3) he
asked Mr. Fiske if a bottle of hot sauce was for plaintiff
and 4) on multiple occasions he said that she looked like the
African American singer Macy Gray, especially with respect to
her curly hair, and that her hair meant she was “really
falling into [her] culture”.

Plaintiff
asserts that Mr. Block's comments about fried chicken,
Kool-Aid and Macy Gray were specifically directed toward her,
while defendant states that they were simply made in her
presence. The parties also disagree about how often the
comments occurred. According to plaintiff, Mr. Block made the
comments about fried chicken, Kool-Aid and Macy Gray at least
once a week in January and February of 2014, while defendant
contends that the fried chicken and Kool-Aid comment was made
on only one occasion.

Mr.
Fiske, plaintiff's coworker, also asked her if she liked,
wanted or drank Kool-Aid about 10 to 15 times between April,
2013 and February, 2014. It is undisputed, however, that
plaintiff did not report Mr. Fiske's comments to HR.
Plaintiff submits that her supervisors witnessed Mr.
Fiske's Kool-Aid comments and laughed about them.

D.
The Investigation of the Text Messages and Comments

The
parties offer differing versions of what happened after
plaintiff reported the text messages and comments to HR.
Defendant submits that Ms. Varn and the Senior Human
Resources Manager, Mike Nuxoll, promptly investigated
plaintiff's claims and, in March, 2014, interviewed
plaintiff over the phone. During the interview, Ms. Varn and
Mr. Nuxoll discussed the text messages and Mr. Block's
comments and said that they would speak to him. Defendant
also asserts that they inquired about whether plaintiff
thought her co-workers retaliated against her for reporting
the text messages by not treating her to a birthday lunch.
They further asked about co-worker reports that plaintiff
talked to herself and drank alcohol at work. Plaintiff
vigorously denies that she did either of those things.

Defendant
contends that Ms. Varn and Mr. Nuxoll also interviewed Mr.
Block and the other employees involved in the text messages
and set up a meeting with plaintiff and Mr. Block after the
interviews. In that meeting, Ms. Varn purportedly asked if
plaintiff was comfortable with the work environment.
Plaintiff stated that she was “fine as long as the
harassment doesn't continue”. Mr. Block apologized
and said he did not think of plaintiff as black and did not
think that she was offended by the comments. After Mr. Block
left the meeting, Ms. Varn thanked plaintiff for reporting
the issues and said that Mr. Block would receive a verbal
warning. Defendant states that it issued verbal warnings to
all employees involved, although plaintiff contends that she
never received a warning for participating in the text
messages.

Plaintiff
asserts, and, for the purpose of summary judgment, defendant
does not dispute, that after the HR investigation, Mr. Block
commented in her presence that he was not permitted to make
statements about fried chicken, Kool-Aid or hair on 10 to 15
separate occasions. Plaintiff states that the comments were
hostile and made her uncomfortable but defendant points out
that plaintiff did not report the comments to HR because she
“didn't think it was harassment”. Plaintiff
explains that she did not report the comments because she did
not think that HR could help her, the comments were not
directed specifically to her and she felt that it would make
things worse. She states that she was worried about losing
her job and that her supervisor, Ms. McGaughey, laughed about
the comments.

E.
Plaintiff's Termination

In
mid-March, plaintiff had her 2013 performance review. Ms.
McGaughey rated her “successful” which is the
median of Sterling's five employee ratings. Plaintiff
claims that she heard Ms. McGaughey say that she was lucky
that the review occurred before she complained to HR because
if it had been after the complaints it would have been a
negative review. How much Ms. McGaughey knew about
plaintiff's complaints to HR is disputed. Defendant
claims that Ms. McGaughey was aware of the complaint about
the text messages but not the complaint about Mr. Block's
comments. Plaintiff contends that Ms. McGaughey demonstrated
that she had some awareness of the complaint concerning Mr.
Block's comments because she heard and laughed in
response to his later statements such as “I cannot make
comments about fried chicken or I might be reported
again”.

Plaintiff
was purportedly terminated for insubordination in response to
a reprimand for discussing Service King's upcoming
acquisition of Sterling. Defendant submits that Sterling
employees were instructed to avoid discussing the acquisition
with “outsiders and the media”. Plaintiff asserts
that she was never instructed to avoid mentioning the
acquisition to other Sterling employees and Sterling assumes
the truth of that statement for the purpose of summary
judgment.

In May,
2014, Ms. McGaughey overheard plaintiff discussing the
acquisition on the phone, concluded that she was violating
the order to avoid discussing it and told her to hang up and
started yelling at her. Defendant contends that plaintiff
responded by 1) calling Ms. McGaughey “woman”, 2)
telling her she was not her mother, 3) saying she was not her
child and 4) advising Ms. McGaughey that she needed to show
plaintiff some respect. Plaintiff denies the first two
allegations but admits to advising Ms. McGaughey that she
should be treated respectfully. Ms. McGaughey ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.